Tamron 16-300 and Raynox 150 or 250

[Lineup-shots]

Hello,

I have the 7d and the tamron 16-300 lens. I want to explore a little more the macro world. Originally the lens already has 1/2.9 magnification. Which of the both Raynox would you consider better for me?

 

[Wesley Byrne]

I've got both the 150 and the 250. Both are good but I like the 150 a little better, and it should get you 1.5:1 or so to about 1:1 magnification with your lens.

A close up lens on a superzoom lens will not match a proper macro lens for image quality, but the images will look okay if you don't pixel peep.

 

[Lineup-shots]

Can you tell me somezhing about the af performance with the adapter?

Would it be maybe better to put the adapter on my canon g7x so that I gain less shallo1w dof?

--
http://www.lineup-shots.com/

 

[_sem_]

I've got both the 150 and the 250. Both are good but I like the 150 a little better, and it should get you 1.5:1 or so to about 1:1 magnification with your lens.

Have you tested with the Tamron 16-300 or with other lenses? Does it work without vignetting? Some lenses happen to be useful with smaller-diameter diopters (afaik these raynoxi have 43mm front thread). But the DCR-250 on the Nikkor 18-200 vignettes heavily, and a full 72mm diameter achromat is needed to avoid vignetting.

Mind also the effect of extension tubes is rather inpredictable with superzoom lenses.

 

[_sem_]

Can you tell me somezhing about the af performance with the adapter?

AF works, as long as you have enough light and you've got sth contrasty to focus upon. But with thin DoF, AF is challenging to use, you must be very careful to focus on the right spot, and it may take a while to regain focus if it fails to lock. Mostly it is easier to turn AF off and focus by moving the camera, and AF is relevant only for moving stuff.

Would it be maybe better to put the adapter on my canon g7x so that I gain less shallo1w dof?

The DCR-250 (+8 diopters) should be useful. Mind that a diopter magnifies most at the long end of the zoom. The DCR-150 would probably not magnify seriously enough (but the working distance remains longer).

 

[Lineup-shots]

...thanks for the answers. And the dcr-150 would be better on my 7d with 16-300 at the long end?

 

[Wesley Byrne]

I've got both the 150 and the 250. Both are good but I like the 150 a little better, and it should get you 1.5:1 or so to about 1:1 magnification with your lens.

Have you tested with the Tamron 16-300 or with other lenses?

No, I haven't tested with the 16-300. I just did some math. Probably should have mentioned that.

Does it work without vignetting?

Good point. I forgot about vignetting.

Some lenses happen to be useful with smaller-diameter diopters (afaik these raynoxi have 43mm front thread).

I think the front thead is 49mm, and the rear is 43mm. So yes, it is small.

But the DCR-250 on the Nikkor 18-200 vignettes heavily, and a full 72mm diameter achromat is needed to avoid vignetting.

The 67mm thread of the Tamron 16-300 is on the top end of what the Raynox adapter will fit, so vignetting is a possibility. But if returns are easy I'd still give it a try.

Mind also the effect of extension tubes is rather inpredictable with superzoom lenses.

 

[Wesley Byrne]

...thanks for the answers. And the dcr-150 would be better on my 7d with 16-300 at the long end?

--
http://www.lineup-shots.com/

The DCR 150, or any other close up lens, will provide the most magnification at the longest focal length. With the zoom set to shorter focal lengths you would get less magnification, which you may want, but you are more likely to see vignetting with the Raynox models at wider focal lengths.

 

[_sem_]

...thanks for the answers. And the dcr-150 would be better on my 7d with 16-300 at the long end?

Because of possible vignetting, achromats in larger diameters would be recommended. Mind these are difficult to find in large diameters. Marumi DHG 200 (+5 diopters) are available, but mind this is a heavy piece of glass.

On a 300mm lens, you can reach macro magnifications already with an achromat around +3 diopters. Mind this is a workaround for a long macro lens, which means a relatively long working distance (33cm), heavy relative background blur, but is also requires good technique (tripod-friendly, alternatively a flash setup with a large diffuser if you can't get flash close to the subject).

 

[Wesley Byrne]

I've got both the 150 and the 250. Both are good but I like the 150 a little better, and it should get you 1.5:1 or so to about 1:1 magnification with your lens.

After some thought, my math may be off. Because of focus breathing I'm not sure what the maximum magnification of the DCR-150 on the 16-300 lens would be. I think it would be somewhere between 1:1.2 and 1.8:1.

I don't have a 16-300 lens to test, and I haven't googled up any reports of close-up lenses used on the 16-300.

 

[Lineup-shots]

Thanks for all your support. I also didn't ffind a report with the raynox on a superzoom lens. That is why I ask here.